北京麻雀 (Sparrows of Beijing)

北 Beijing 2008 - 7

7

On the Detail of Paintings

Of detail of the painting can be one of several ways, the three most common are a large picture zoomed too small, which is how the teacher wants it, a small picture assumed too big, and a detail which is magnifying large but hangs on the realization that it is the most important detail of all. Let's begin with, the detail.

The large detail is a top-down detail from 30,000 feet, it zooms over the topic. Then it divides up the topic and describes the prevalent details. The only fact that it needs to gloss over, is the details that are blank, or neutral, in some way. This way is the usual method because most photographs are laid out in such a way as to clean the topic. Consider if you will illustrate, and the details that are important are labeled as such. We talked about Norman Rockwell, and this is a good example because illustrator is something that is gleaned from a cursory example. But the large detail is not always the best, though much of the time it is, for artwork, and especially high-quality artwork, it is not the best. This is because in illustrator wants to make plain one fact, and all of the details are focused around this fact. In Norman Rockwell's paintings, the detail is often a large dominant figure, examining one who is small, but they stand in reverse in the picture, the tiny figure is seated; and the large, in fact, impact enormous - a tiny picture. This is not a coincidence: you will see many of his fine pictures – even to this day. For example: in Kaanchi, none of the pictures are in the abstract.¹

Artwork, as opposed to illustration, gleans not from the inside, nor from the outside, but from layering. It details the big picture, which is not recognizable, but it is because the hidden things are not supposed to be recognized. This is particularly true where the writing system is not English, or anything directly related to English. What I mean by this, is for example expressed in the writing system of Kashmiri, which is directly related to the Sharda script language, which has only a tangential meaning. In modern terms, it's written in both the Perso-Arabic and the Devanagari script system. But it was originally written Sharada system which reveals key details that are not in any of the two main scripts. This is in, and why Sharada is still used.

I need to redo. This is not right, but how to fix it? And I must explain the social sciences are recursive in their model, by accident.

1 In the fine script, Ardelle Li took pen to hand:

American Solitude

Visual bard

Maudlin projection

fortuitous poignance

isolated states

Symbolizing America

abstractly magnificent

E pluribus unum

Balkans sovereignties

conceivably atomized

inauspicious gestate

realist Symbolist

ruthlessly aesthetic

Nighthawks stylistic